ML20202G142

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transmits Summary of Meeting with Owners Groups Held at USNRC Region II Offices in Atlanta,Georgia,On 990114 on risk-informed STS
ML20202G142
Person / Time
Issue date: 01/29/1999
From: Beckner W
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To: Byrd K, Hackerott A, Krueger G
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
References
NUDOCS 9902040317
Download: ML20202G142 (22)
v • d • e


Text

_. _... _.

. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ -.~. _

January 29, 1999 Mr. Alan Hacke ott Mr. Greg Krueger Omaha Public Power District PECO Energy Company Ft. Calhoun Nuclear Station Mail Code 63A-3 P.O. Box 399 965 Chesterbrook Boulevard Ft. Calhoun, NE 68023-0399 Wayne, PA 19087 Mr. Kendall Byrd Mr. Xavier Polanski First Energy Corporation.

Commonwealth Edison Company

48. ail Stop'3105 Nuclear Engineering Services 300 Madison Avenue 1400 Opus Place, Suite 300 Toledo, OH 43652 Downers Grove, IL 60515 Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to transmit the summary of a meeting with the Owners Groups held at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Region ll offices in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 14,1999.

Sincerely, Carl S. Schulten for William D. Beckner, Chief Technical Specifications Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Meetings Summary a
2. Attendance List
3. Meeting Presentations
4. Strawman Development
cc: See atteched list DISTRIBUTJQN: See attached.

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\NVGWTGS199.WPD OFFICE lNRR/ADPR/TSB NR 3/DSSA/SPSB NRR/ADPR/TSB i

NAME NVGillesT@

WW' WDBecknebh [

DATE I [ll99-

/ /M/99 i /?I/99 OFFICIAL RECORD CDPY

~

9902o40317 990129 POR ORO MRRA gg g 23

@f

January 29, 1999 i.

~

Mr. Alan Hackerott Mr. Greg Krueger Omaha Public Power District PECO Energy Company Ft. Calhoun Nuclear Station Mail Code 63A-3 P.O. Box 399 965 Chesterbrook Boulevard j

Ft. Calhoun, NE 68023-0399 Wayne, PA 19087 Mr. Kendall Byrd Mr. Xavier Polanski First Energy CeiT,e..i;en Commonwealth Edison Company Mail Stop'3105 Nuclear Engineering Services 300 Madison Avenue 1400 Opus Place, Suite 300 Toledo, OH 43652 Downers Grove,IL 60515 i

Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to transmit the summary of a meeting with the Owners Groups held at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Region ll offices in Atlanta, l

Georgia, on January 14,1999.

1 Sincerely, Carl S. Schulten for 4

William D. Beckner, Chief i

Technical Specifications Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4

4 l

Ent.ioures: 1. Meetings Summary

' 2. Attendance List

3. Meeting Presentations
4. Strawman Development l

cc: See attached list 1

DISTRIBUTION: See attached.

j DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\NVG\\MTGS199.WPD j

OFFICE NRR/ADPR/TSB,

NRB/DSSA/SPSB NRR/ADPR/TSB NAME NVGillesl@

WEM..%#M' WDBeckne()h.[

DATF l /TI99

/ /M/99 i/?/99

)

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 1

e L

n.

-..n.e.

~

n._

.~.....

_..-..~. -

~,;

6 Multiple Addressees DISTRIBUTION:

E-Mail w/o Enclosure 3 TSB Staff HARD COPY FILE CENTER

- P:JBLIC SCollins/RPZimmerman

. BABoger.

BWSheron WDBeckner JAZwolinski l

EAdensam I

.GHolahan RJBarrett AAEl-Bassioni MLWohl MACunningham TSB R/F

- FMReinhart NVGilles i

t I

l.

i t

k..

j

i nao UNITED STATES

[

S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WAeHINGToN, D.C. 2000640M

  • t January 29, 1999 1

Mr. Alan Hackerott Mr. Greg Krueger Omaha Public Power District PECO Energy Company Ft. Calhoun Nuclear Station Mail Code 63A-3 P.O. Box 399 965 Chesterbrook Boulevard Ft. Calhoun, NE 68023-0399 Wayne, PA 19087 Mr. Kendall Byrd Mr. Xavier Polanski First Energy Corporation Commonwealth Edison Company Mail Stop 3105 Nuclear Engineering Services 300 Madison Avenue 1400 Opus Place, Suite 300 Toledo,OH 43652 Downers Grove, IL 60515 Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to transmit the summary of a meeting with the Owners Groups held at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Region ll offices in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 14,1999.

Sincerely, William D. Beckner, Chief Technical Specifications Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Meetings Summary
2. Attendance Ust
3. Meeting Presentations
4. Strawman Development cc: See attached list

,,-en-em+

e

~. =

a

1 Multiple Addressees SG' Mr. Biff Bradley Mr. Thomas Hook Nuclear Energy Institute San Onofra Nuclear Generating Station Suite 400 Southern California Edison 17761 Street, NW 5000 Pacific Coast Highway Washington, DC 20006-3708 San Clemente, California 92674-0128 Mr. Bryan Ford Mr. Duncan Brewer Er:tergy Services, Inc.

Duke Power Company 1340 Echelon Parkway Mail Code EC081 M-ECH 660 526 South Church Street Jackson, MS 39213 8298 P. O. Box 1006 Charlotte, NC 28201 Mr. Rick Grantom South Texas Project Electric Generating Mr. Frank Rahn Station Electric Power Research Institute STP Nuclear Operating Company P. O. Box 10412 Mail Code N5010 Palo Alto, CA 94303 P. O. Box 289 Wadsworth,TX 77483 Mr. Donald Hoffman EXCEL Services Corporation Mr. Jack Stringfellow 11921 Rockville Pike, Suite 100 Southern Nuclear Operating Corr,any Rockville, MD 20852 P.O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 may+,,me emme gaup _

h wW y

NRC/ INDUSTRY MEETING ON RISK-INFORMED STS MEETING

SUMMARY

JANUARY 14,1999 i

A meeting between the NRC staff and representatives from the four Nuclear Steam Supply System Owners Groups, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) was held on January 14,1999. The attendees are listed in Enclosure 2. The meeting was a continuation of an earlier meeting held on December 8,1998, where the main topic of discussion was the creation of a fully risk-informed set of standard technical specifications (RI STS). These meetings were held as a follow-up to the Licensing Managers' Workshop held in July 1998. The issue of the creation of a RI-STS was one of the issues that the NRC staff committed to pursue further with industry at that workshop.

At the January 14 meeting several presentations were made. Copies of the presentation materials are provided in Enclosure 3. The staff presented some opening remarks and stated the objectives of the meeting. The staff asked the industry representatives if they believed there was enough industry support to pursue the types of technical specification improvements discussed in the first meeting. The majority of the industry group indicated that they believed there was industry support, but that the group would need to demonstrate early successes to keep the support going. The industry representatives also indicated that a key to ensuring continued industry support was adequate NRC management support for such initiatives.

A presentation by Alan Hackerott, Chairmen of the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG) Probabilistic Safety Assessment Committee (PSAC) followed the NRC presentation. Mr. Hackerott discussed a proposed industry strawman for developing risk-informed technical specifications. Mr. Hackerott's presentation was supplemented by a presentation from Thomas Hook of Southern California Edison (SCE). Mr. Hook outlined an SCE plan to pursue several risk-informed technical specification improvements for San Oricfra Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) and offered to have SONGS be a lead plant for many of the suggested improvements.

Following these presentations, the group developed more detailed information for several of the potential improvements discussed in the CEOG strawman. These detailed issues are summarized in Enclosure 4. The final presentation of the meeting was made by Donald Wakefield from PLG, Inc., on behalf of EPRI, concerning technical specification action statement end states.

Several key issues that could affect the success of the technical specification initiatives were discussed during the meeting. The group discussed the potential affect of the impending change to the maintenance rule (10 CFR 50.65) and the relationship of proposed Section (a)(4) of the revised mio to the configuration risk management program (CRMP) discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.77, "An Approach for Plant Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Technical Specifications". The group discussed possible mechanisms for submitting proposed improvements, including joint submittals by one or more Owners Groups and use of the process for making generic changes to the standard 1

technical specifications (STS). The group tentatively agreed to a process for development of proposed generic risk-informed improvaments. It was agreed that the industry leads for a given issue would develop e draft proposal, bring it to the RI STS development group for review, and then send it to the NEl Technical Specifications Task Force for review as a generic change to the STS. FirWly, the group agreed to meet again in March 1999, at NRC Headquarters, to discuss some of the initial draft proposals.

1 I

2

~,

Meeting Attendees January 14,1999 Maint Affiliation Thomas Hook Southern California Edison Ray Schneider ABB-CE Alan Hackerott Omaha Public Power District Biff.Bradley Nuclear Energy Institute j

Bryan Ford Entergy Jim Andrachek Westinghouse Eric Smith NUS IS Bob Christie Performance Technology Gene Eckholt Notrhern States Power Duncan Brewer Duke Power N. V. Stringfellow Southern Nuclear Rick Grantom South Texas Project j

Donald Hoffman EXCEL Services Ian Wall EPRI Don Wakefield PLG Stanley Levinson FTl Tony Brooks INPO Young Ju Kang INPC Bruce Mrowca Baltimore Gas & Electric Adel El Bassioni NRC/NRR/SPSB Millard Wohl NRC/NRR/SPSB Nanette Gilles NRC/NRR/TSB

.,a.w.

s,-

+

w:s.ma..x

.a...

.n.

-s

.a-s-,..

4 4

e Ld H

w l-1 I

f; R

1! f i A

' lb !I I i

1 jiI

!!l. lib 4t?

l 6ylIIfI!

fl Illl1 y

g m

l l

j

e e

9 Y

W u ?)

l

%n, l

,e g

ws

}

y 1

c:

.M E'

YIM l

{

{.

@{j r

t, O

f:,

3

,1 w

g g,

t d,[i I..!r ggl1 s

1..!!!

li ililii y!

1 g

i Endosure 3 4

  • ' * * = =

.w+.

w.

.. _ -.....~.,

-...~_-

... ~......

r 1

i i

BACKGROUND i

F i

i Risk-Informed Technical eR % %,esieend m i

Specifications e Lummw Lumed tem RI ACTS

'"d "7 an IndusD Strawman e caos see. men umammioppie e proposed hedule

(

enom-cece e e

,a m me f

Messie elNRC lheelen e, Ashsen,GA January 14, tese 4

i Riek. Informed Regulation Benefits of RITS 1

i e Goal

. Ermemd phnt ath 4

. poem mesurose on soiwee impertintto sv ny usias risk inedehm in the domeien-meline presome

' Reduced costeroperseone

.rioense pienn to opereen

. Added sembetr in sneesens remswoes j

-remove ehumoun se e punieve schei

. feewists to eMwe piant to og oppropriese end-esteendseeen Lessons Leamed OBJECTIVE OF RITS EFFORT o Estabash the temowork for en environment

. m,.,,,, e,,e w, - -

.e,

, e

= mewune men emmee

where operators can make prudent risk-e massessannesud,=*me eranun=ewsms informed operstonal dedeions bened on e ameswesammentee.mamme '" acte,einsammepayum plant safety using risk 4nformed tools and asamma W and seneme) senmee assemd pens ensemy to eM Mto etWho dedeione spe=es een seus em o Imammesmeney be stuk and 2- _

_ gustaan timeens amad hr innsey and suoidulusy summsees uden ne not numeE o cRasp passesseresiseaseg.

smanismopesedes edessene mensenes er esas pese esenten, and t e puusequhes tur tuelumasammen af flat luemmed Tash sposa 1

E..,........*'...._

4 *

  • w;~-

7m m

-, y.

omeno -

4 j

t PREREQUISITES FOR PREREQUISITES FOR i

SUCCESS: INDUSTRY SUCCESS:NRC l

a j

e For RI TS to become a reality early

.NRC j

successes are important

. Pievide k phed and onWy L.m_._.

. Meep indusey-NRC esmmunlemtene open

,p

  • E****'"#"d'"' " "' * *"d

. se propered a permeipete in en knudeoen er 8*

j ete Ri TS (Meney and Reesurese)

- E***"#' '"e'8P"*'** * '"8'""*8 8*'d

.Denne empeemeene owerty and up tent

.n ironment rim,mmenneen

. non w.mee m,mmunesa eist

.eense osesp

.ni moses,e l

,i i

I i

i j

CEOG Strawman Mode 4 End State

      • ".,*"m'.d="'"""*""m'""""se.

. uode 4.nd mate provida ufer end stata

..ese m s e eciu m en,,,m,en, m as, msn for most ACTS

  • assa sti m e.Tese se= Aenme==me miesi =8ma h

. greater redundancy in oblity to perform

, swee me, ne,,,y e,as p mano vuesman emes = s.een safety func8ons

,,,,,e,,,,,,,,,,

, e,e om.ne,,,, an mu ne e chenes 807 Leo essen samenmes m e amenese amenaud

= more restrictions on plant conGouretion Es,at m e Proirninary took initleted by CEOG to e unymastesm aemmesmanamassommenes==nnemer support / expand sped 6c AOTextension

  • ""* 8 *8 7$'""*,,',",,",,'"e,", "*%,7,,,,,

o CEOG Pilot plant committed (SCE)

    • 'd

mesum. ass===

e CEOG submittel expected to cover au CEOG i

PWRs Increase Flexibility in Mode Move STIs to Licensee Control Restraints nogram o uodw miseng mode rutreint wgic to snow e obpeuve is to remove desion requirement r

CRMP senseements for entry into higher that ensumes a missed STi,..i--'

rnode LCOs based on iow risk.

ImpEesenINOPERABLE component.

o Excesolve restric6ons have resuted in large e leeue has large cost impimtions to uutty cools to ulittes with no tangible risk benett to without seisty bene 8t puhac e Requires scensing assessment of tenue e CEoG Pilot has beenidenuled (8CE) e Taskis generic.

e CEoG submmel expected to cover en CEoG e work wnh NRC stoff to overcomo any PWRs regulatory twh a,~,

e;. - -.._ - - -.. - -

l R-1 AOTs R-I AOTs (cont'd) e Short Term 0bjectNo le to integmte the CRMP e Extended AOTs should be restricted to Into the LCO action statement in order to allow conditions which assure current TS plant for extending the base ACT when necessary.

defense in depth is maintained (redundant Becketop win conenW nwd, defenempm, system or capabilty eveilable) and e Pilot. ants should have enimplemented is.

e implementation of R-l ACTS may be phased e x.y is undetending tnet actions win renset expedmous ruolution of Lco condeone Upgrade'Is to reflect new plant Modify 3.0.3 Actions and OperationalTechnologies Timing o Objective is to ensure guidance and e Modify 3.0.3 (and other shutdown TS] to actions in the ISTS property reflect reflect appropriate risk insights to allow

, current understanding of Operational R-l consideration of shutdown vs repair plantlimitations e Maintain defense in depth e Examples 'nclude the removal of TS on considerations for entry into 3.0.3.

core uplift, core thermal limits, other TS e Minimum shutdown time limited to 24 issues likely hours; actions subject to CRMP e Strawmanis not fully scoped 1

Modify 3.0.3 Actions and Timing Strawnsaa Schedule

  • '***"*""****"*"8'""8**"**

e Allow considerations of projected time e sustanesem mode tweeinte: s e menme gg g

associated with timing and mode.

e Move sTle to me Tech spo,. Adminletreeve es.wat e.eeen one,wna e,m: e se $a mente o Limited 3.0.3 issues evaluated by

  • sustavesem Aot Leo ween amonenn:1s 24 w p and 24 as menme w mW CEOG forCS and HPSI systems affecting timing and endstate e sneewyis no tenereeneetpientoperesen:se as

,7,"4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,

eSCE p 2 h CE % W

  • eme.

eyg.

- em m e w a muungss e - w g.4 _

es e e-4.-e

,ee

. ~..

~..

Summary e Proposed proprem increase plant utsty and reduces potental vor unnecessary plant shutdowns and inappropriate viologons, o Phased and graded espects of relof provides Emely benefit for the entire industry, e Program is wn-Wn uumy paybeck is large, reduces unnecessary regulaton and enhenoes putic enfety.

]

4

COMMITMENT RISK-INFORMED ISTS

. SCE Executives have committed to support T. O. Hook Risk informed (RI) Improved Standardized Todmical Specification (ISTS) project Manager, Nuclear Safety

. San Onofre will volunteer to be a lead plant San Onofre Nuclear Generstmg Station forRI ISTS submittals

. Se-hfre has developed a strawman January 14,1999 Mg, sal for RI ISTS based on December 8, 1998 public meetmg a rt#6ii' OPofiW:

SAN ONOFRE STRAWMAN(cont.)

SAN ONOFRE STRAWMAN

. Modify LCO 3.0.4 to allow mode chanses where risk is reduced or negligible impact

. Modify LCO 3.0.3 to allow appropriate F-noted in specifw tech space actions within 24 hotas based CRMP

, Modify LCO 3.0.2 to allow adhoc extension

-Excepuone notein specifw twh specs of AOTs up to 31 days based on CRMP

- Continue power opentaan if power operacon riskImr than shuums h

- Exospuons noted in specific tech specs

- Must demonstrate every 24 hrs that risk of

. Modify LCO 3.0.2 to establish Mode 4 as conunued operation esfer than shutdown shutdown actioninstead of Mode 5

- Must take prudent actions (equipment

- Exceptions noted in specific tech specs restorsuon A camp measures)per CRMP. _,,,_.

. gg;g UITJsM a

l SAN ONOFRE STRAWMAN (cont.)

SAN ONOFRE STRAWMAN(cart.)

. Relocate toch spec surveillances to admin

. Two versus n<limensional safety limits program and risk inform test intervals

- taitially assessed to not be oosubanerwiel

- Revise and relocate SR 3.0.1,3.0.2, and 3.0.3

-More study needed, butlow priority to noch spec acknin section

. Extend scope of CRMP to all modes

- EhannateLCO satry based on siissed

-N #teve essessments consiment w th 8"ill"

proposed M==aaoe Rule changes

- Utilize RI-IST approach (RO 1.175) to

- Requwed to allow changes to lower mode tech desente approprW ten he specLCOs

& 55 O[ 5

.=.

l

{

l PROCESS SAN ONFORE SUBMITTAL SCHEDULE

. Lead plants draft each toch spec chang 2 and

. LCO 3.0.3 to 24 hrs: 7/lM supporting analysis

. LC010.2 shutdown raR. 7/1/99

  • Owners Groups review and comment

. LCG 3.0.4 mode changes: 7/1/99

  • NRC/ Industry project team review and

. SRs to admin section and RI: 4/1/2000 v

comment

. LCO 3.0.2 adhoc 31 days: 4/1/1000

  • Lead plant submit change to NRC Q........[5fr5M.

a IBisU R.'

.... - _........ -. ~...... _

v

RISK INFORMED ACTION STATEMENT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS END STATES D. Wake 6eH, PLO

. Action Statements Require Transite to F.J. Rahn, EPRI Cold Shutdown When Duration of NRC Industry Meeting Abnormal Condition Exceeds AOT January 14,1999

  • Hot Shutdown May Be As Safe on Safer for Atlanta, Georgia Many Conditions BASIS HOT SHUTDOWN CONDITIONS a Ri.h of Maintaining Hot Shutd)wn are
  • Commining to Cold Shutdown May Impose Lowerlhan at Full Power For fimilar Higher Risks than Remaining at Hot Shutdown

- As Operseing System is Removing Decay Hem Equipment States

. caid shang,. opia, m.m

- Reactor Tripped and 50 Cooling Functioning

- Laan Tranerem ifNecesery, hid lavalve Lower

-Heat Generation Contmually Dec reases as Desey Heat Decey Occurs

  • Actual Tradeoffs Depend on Plant And Na

-Multiple SaTety Systems Remais in Abnormal Condiuon Automatic COLD SHUTDOWN CONDITIONS-COLD SHUTDOWN CONDITIONS CONTINUED

  • Risks of Transition to and Mamtammg Cold
  • Transition involves Rejecting Energy Shutdown Are Not Negligi >1e Storedin RCS

- Auto Actueuon of Sonw Safety Syasms

  • d
  • Decay Heat Remaal Requirements

-Rshance on RHR Syman fw Cmimg Same as forHot Shutdown

- 50 Celing Recovery Recpires Operator Intervention and Equipmen State Changes l'l.1 TMe" ie, wap e.

=,,

w w

QUESTIONS TOBE QUESTIONS - CONTINUED CONSIDERED e Does the Reduction of Stored RCS Energy

. How Does Gradual Decrease of Decay Heat Warrant the Shutdown of an Operstmg Heat impact.

Removal System?

-Hot Shutdown Success Cntieria?

  • What Additional Events Can Happen at Hot

- Actions Necessary for Trenation to Cold Shutdown?

Shutdown that Pose More Risk 'Ihan Cold

- Flexibility to Recovw Freen Failures?

Shutdown?

pg, l

t CDF FOR HOT SHUTDOWN CDF COMPARISON-HOT SilUTDOWN VS. COLD SHUTDOWN

  • Less than Full Power Risks
  • Cold Shutdown CDF Generally Lower on
  • Time-Averaged Full Power CDF Varies CalendarYear Basis from lx10.s to 2x10d Per Year
  • When Scaled to Full Year, Cold Shutdown
  • CDF Would Increase for Some Abnormal CDF is Comparable, Even When Only Conditions Considering RCS Filled Conditions gg Pu r

CDF FORTRANSITION TO/FROM CDF FOR1RANSITION TO AND AND DURING COLD SHUTDOWN DURING COLD SHUTDOWN Seabrook Shutdown Study Results for Cold

  • Zion Shutdown Study Results for Cold Shutdown with RCS Filled Shutdowtt with RCS Filled
  • Shutdown CDF = 4.5xles Per Cel. Year
  • Shutdown CDF = 1.axlgs Per Cel. Year
  • RCS Filled Condnuon = 1.3x1&S Per CeLYear
  • RCS Filled (Non-Drained Maintenance) =
  • Scalad to Full Year et Cold shutdown = 7.txits 3.9x104 Per Cal. Year Per Year
  • Scaled To Full Year At Cold Shutdown =

3.4xl&d Per Year PlJ J

i

, _.. =.

.a

.3 l

l CDF FOR TRANSITION TO AND GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINEIG t

1 DURING COLD SHUTDOWN PREFERRED OPERATING MODE FOLLOWING AN LCO

+ Goesgen Shutdown Study Results for Cold Develop Model for CDF for Duration at Hot Shutdown with RCS Filled Shutdown

  • Shutdown CDF = 9.0xt&s Per Cal, Year Develop Model for CDF During Transition to

+ RCS Filled (Non-Drained Maintenance) =

and Duration in Cold Shutdown, with RCS j

1.3xt&d Per Cal.Yter Filled

  • Scaled to Fu!! Year et Cold Shutdown =

Adjust Models for Selected Abnorma!

7.0xt&d Per Year pl.l-.

Conditions PII GUIDELINES -CONTINUED CONCLUSION For Most Plants, Mode 4 Operation Following en

. If Transition Risk is SigniScant, Evaluate LCO Ap to Wer:Mor Fmt Ressacs:

Outage Time When Risks are Equal

  • b""

",fmalmMWy FoHmns

. AdjustTech Spec Action Statement for

- It Pmida Me OW Flexibiliry Time Required to Bein Cold Shutdown

- 1: Allows e riset e Moe. Qui uy Retwa m Full Power

  • Develop Generic Insights for Other Plants

$?,*[d PII sed ooins U is Poww P

.~.

i I

i 4

l STRAWMAN DEVELOPMENT

- (Issues are presented in priority order as determined by the RI-STS development group) lasue 1: Hot Shutdown End State Task Objective: Define Hot Shutdown as preferred and state for TS actions.

{

Technical issues: Is this change risk beneficial or risk neutral in all cases (i.e., are there

]

any outliers)? What about shutdowns under LCO 3.0.3 for loss of function? For LCOs that are applicable in Hot Shutdown, is it prudent to develop a TS that would allow j

licensees to remain in the mode of applicability of an LCO when they do not meet the LCO?

l Licensing issues: Should this improvement be pursued globally or one LCO at a time? We may need to write an exception to STS LCO 3.0.2 for LCOs that are applicable in Hot j

Shutdown.

i Team (s): Tom Hook (SCE) to propose a submittal as a lead PWR plant.

4 Bryan Ford (Entergy) will review the BWR STS by the next meeting.

i Schedule: Scope of change and TS markups by March meeting.

SCE sumbittalin 3 6 months.

Issue 2: Missed Surveillance Raouirements (SRs)

Task Objective: Increase the time allowed to delay entering required actions when a surveillance is missed.

Technical Issues: How do we establish appropriate time?

Licensing issues: None identified.

Team (s): Tom Hook (SCE) preparing risk insights Don Hoffman (EXCEL) preparing TS writeup Schedule: Bring risz. insights and proposed writeup to March meeting.

Issue 3: Increase Flexibility in Mode Restraints Task Objective: Modify existing mode restraint logic to allow greater flexibility (e.g., use risk assessments, like the CRMP, for entry into higher mode LCOs based on low risk).

Technical lasues: Would we need to develop risk criteria for the assessment? What about PRA/CRMP quality issues?

Licensing issues: Should relief be based on existing AOT times, e.g., change the LCO 3.0.4 exception for restricting mode changes frora actions allowing continuous operation to actions with AOTs a 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />?

1

A i

Team (s): Tom Hook (SCE)

Schedule: TS markup and analysis of systems by March meeting.

SCE submittal in 6-12 months.

lasue 4: Risk-Informed Allowed Outage Times (AOTs)

Task Objective: Develop a risk-informed extension of current AOTs based on a CRMP.

Short term: Adjust all AOTs < 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

Long term: Go to system that rolles on CRMP to determine AOTs combined with a

" backstop" AOT.

Technical issues: Short term = None. Objective can be met using current guidance.

Long term =How will staff gain confidence in CRMPs being used to replace AOTs?

Licensing lasues: Short term =None.

Long-term = Structure of TS.

Team (s): Short-term =lndividual Owners Groups pursuing ACT extensions.

Long-term = Tom Hook (SCE)

Schedule: 12-18 months for SCE sbumittal.

Don Hoffman agreed to bring a current list of the TSTF contemplated AOT changes to the March meeting.. Other Owners Group reps agreed to bring input on specific ACT changes to the March meeting.

Issue 5: Ootimize and Move SRs Task Objective: (1) Eliminate SRs that don't relate to safety functions; (2) Optimize surveillance test intervals (STis) for remaining SRs; (3) Move SRs to a licensee-controlled program.

Technical Issues: What is the appropriate scope of SRs for TS systems? Need to establish an approved process for setting / changing STis.-like COLR and PTLR. Could risk-informed IST methods be used?

Licensing Issues: 10 CFR 50.36 requires SRs.

Team (s): Tom Hook (SCE)

Schedule: 12-18 months for SCE submittal.

Don Hoffman will bring markup of SRs that TSTF began preparing to March meeting.

2

+-,.gm.,.

_v

+

.-r

Issue 6: Modifv 3.0.3 Actions and Timina Task Objective: Extend minimum time to begin LCO 3.0.0 shutdown from 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and allow for a risk-informed evaluation to determine whether it is better to shut down or continue to operate.

Technical lasues: How do we address defense-in-depth concerns? How do we address concerns over high-risk configurations that get you into LCO 3.0.3? Each LCO will have to be reviewed individually for impact from this change.

Licensing lasues: How do we address the difference between entry into LCO 3.0.3 unexpectedly (e.g., loss of safety function), and entry into LCO 3.0.3 because of failure to comply with all previous actions (including a shutdown action)?

Team (s): Tom Hook (SCE)

Don Hoffman (EXCEL)

Schedule: 6-12 months for SCE submittal.

Don Hoffman will outline proposals to address this issue for a future meeting.

3

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20202G142&oldid=4080553"